The manospherean narrative seems to be that men want traditionalism but women do not. Women are unwilling to settle down etc.

But from talking to many women, I find this is not the case. The vast majority of women say that they are looking for a man who will commit, support her, have a family etc. Women would love to be with a man who paid for everything.

However, when observing the behaviour of most men, it is clear that nearly all men, or a significant majority, don't want this. Most men want the woman to pay half. Most men are slow to commit and all usually do it after a lot of pressure from their partner. Men seem reluctant to marry and have kids because these are commitments that tie them to the woman, and men tend to be reluctant to commit.

Many manosphereans say traditionalism is "alpha" and dominant behaviour, but really a traditional man is the one doing all the work like a slave. If a man is working like a slave and handing most of his money to his wife and kids, this is not dominant behaviour. This is slave behaviour. If a manospherean traditional man really believes in the wall hypothesis (ie a woman's looks tank after thirty) then if he commits to a woman eg by marrying her, then he is committing to a depreciating asset, which means he is worse off compared to the Leonardo Di Caprio-style pump and dumper who spends his own money on himself and goes from one young woman to another.

Most men seem to want to be like Di Caprio. And men have the freedom to do this because there is less peer pressure to follow gender roles nowadays. As such, is it really women who are the beneficiaries of the fall of gender role or are the real winners men?

When manosphereans blame women for not being traditional, should the finger of blame really be on women or should it be directed towards men themselves?